One problem with the Drake equation is that it doesn’t contain a variable for the likelihood that religiostupification will shorten the length of time that civilizations will remain viable before destroying themselves for superstitious purposes.

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

One problem with the Drake equation is that it doesn’t contain a variable for the likelihood that religiostupification will shorten the length of time that civilizations will remain viable before destroying themselves for superstitious purposes.

The L-factor (factor for timed survival of the civilization) includes this possibility so yeah, it’s accounted for. It is also tagentially considered in the fc factor which deals with technological advancement.

McCrea: Screw humans. We are just 3.8 billion years of thermodynamics and bio-chemistry.

Got that a little sideways McC. it was six million years of humans screwing after the billions of years bio-chemical stewing and shuffling made it possible… to screw, that is.

This article gave me deja-vu. Some mormon dude, I’ll call him irate R., was e-mailing me about this recent scientific theory and explained to me in a number of manic e-mails, that scientists are just now discovering what the “Doctrine and Covenants” and “Pearl of Great Price” (two off-shoots of the Book of Mormon that contain some of ole Joe’s “prophecies), predicted.

The deja-vu occurred when my hippocampus fired off memories of Jack Shooter saying the “fly hadith” and recent scientific research coincided with and “proved” the prophet’s prophecies!

This irate R. dude believes, no wait, knows (because mormons don’t “believe,” they KNOW) that these other Earth-like planets belong to other good, patriarchal men because they followed the teachings of the church and are now gods.

Typical aye, religionists disagree with the science they don’t like and agree with the science that appears to buttress their “prophecies.”

So tavishhiil, IYO, will the astrophysicists decide that other galaxies are brimming with life (whatever stage of development) too if it turns out that our galaxy is brimming (whatever stage of development) with life?
Can they tell if there are suns similar to ours in other galaxies?

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

The first replicating molecule happened on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. That was the beginning to the tree of life. Common descent says that we are related to the DNA in that molecule. I think it has been recently proven that all life on earth has some similar DNA/Genes. So, widely, I was just figuring that when life began in this biosphere, our origin began as well. I was talking about our most distant ancestor not our most recent. Obviously we split from a common ancestor with other primates about 6 million years ago.
Still, all life on earth is simply the product of thermodynamics and biochemistry, no matter how long it took homo sapiens to arrive.

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

It’s a matter of statistics at this point. Yes, it’s relatively simple to find stars in other galaxies that are sun-like, but being sun-like isn’t really all that important in the grand scheme of brewing life. The current understanding is that there are TONS of high probability candidates for life just in the Milky Way, let alone the rest of the universe. We won’t get to closely examine those candidates to anywhere near the point where we would be able to tell one way or the other anytime soon.

It’s a matter of statistics at this point. Yes, it’s relatively simple to find stars in other galaxies that are sun-like, but being sun-like isn’t really all that important in the grand scheme of brewing life. The current understanding is that there are TONS of high probability candidates for life just in the Milky Way, let alone the rest of the universe. We won’t get to closely examine those candidates to anywhere near the point where we would be able to tell one way or the other anytime soon.

Thanks for deciphering my question and answering tavish… you’re the “go to” guy in this field of study. I figured that statistics figured in here somehow, but, by “sun-like” I mean specifically, ‘earth sun-like’ in its size, diameter and life-span, so much so, that this sun also happens to have an earth-like (which I assume means water-bearing) planet trapped in a similar gravitational dance, or orbit, that is/was conducive to life developing before the star goes/went supernova.
IOW, is it possible to tell if a particular sun in our galaxy has/had similar life-span(s) and planet ratios?

(Do my questions even make sense? One too many twists in the DNA. )

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

It’s a matter of statistics at this point. Yes, it’s relatively simple to find stars in other galaxies that are sun-like, but being sun-like isn’t really all that important in the grand scheme of brewing life. The current understanding is that there are TONS of high probability candidates for life just in the Milky Way, let alone the rest of the universe. We won’t get to closely examine those candidates to anywhere near the point where we would be able to tell one way or the other anytime soon.

Thanks for deciphering my question and answering tavish… you’re the “go to” guy in this field of study. I figured that statistics figured in here somehow, but, by “sun-like” I mean specifically, ‘earth sun-like’ in its size, diameter and life-span, so much so, that this sun also happens to have an earth-like (which I assume means water-bearing) planet trapped in a similar gravitational dance, or orbit, that is/was conducive to life developing before the star goes/went supernova.
IOW, is it possible to tell if a particular sun in our galaxy has/had similar life-span(s) and planet ratios?

(Do my questions even make sense? One too many twists in the DNA. )

Yeah, the lifespan stuff is easy to spot. It all depends on mass usually. Whether or not there is a planet that is Earth-sized is there in a similar orbit is a tougher question. The planet would have to be within a certain range for water to exist there as a liquid at the surface and other atmospheric traits would need to be exhibited as well.